musket- when mr dyson developed his cyclone hoover ,it was the result of operational science. I know I keep telling you, but this involves observations on a subject by repeatable experiments. this is not the domain of Darwinism.
shimrod ,I did begin to read origins but it is so boring and hard going ,I gave up. but not before reading his admission that what he proposed could equally be otherwise interpreted from the data he presented. that data is basically the study of natural selection on various forms - I remember ploughing through stuff on pigeons.
and what did he find? changes via natural or artificial selection but they were still birds, and I think still pigeons.
I have before invited you's to give me the section of the book where he demonstrates that it can go any further than that.
nothing was forthcoming- I wonder why !!
perhaps, shimrod ,you can do so from your reading of it?
I suppose I could read dawkins. stuff like how the eye is so badly designed and thus demonstrating no creator or a stupid one.
but he was wrong. the so called backward wiring is the optimal engineered design for sight.
maybe another reason he wont debate creation scientists.
of course over the years, I have read many of the posts of his disciples and I would have thought his admirers would have presented his best arguments.
but then ,you probably have!